http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/wi...teins_mind.html

 

Roger Ebert is great.

That's pretty awesome.

At first it was funny, but I'm really starting to get sick of/frightened by the war on intellectualism in America.

At first it was funny, but I'm really starting to get sick of/frightened by the war on intellectualism in America.

f***ing elitist piece of s***

Even significant chunks of the creationist movement distanced themselves from the movie because of how awful it was.

 

It's funny how roundly every point in that movie was shown to be very misleading or just outright false. It was also outperformed by Maher's "Religulous," for whatever that's worth. I've heard his movie wasn't much better.

 

Best line from the review:

"The more you know about evolution, or simple logic, the more you are likely to be appalled by the film"

 

This issue tends to get me worked up and ranting for pages on end.

 

http://controversy.wearscience.com/

Edited December 5, 200817 yr by StrangeSox

I think there is a disconnect in communication for sure on this front.

I'm glad he bashed other movies found to be riddled with inaccuracies.

I'm glad he bashed other movies found to be riddled with inaccuracies.

 

Yeah, I found Ebert's review of EXpelled to be funny, but his lack of consistency is a bit disturbing. Everybody has an agenda though, unfortunately.

I'm glad he bashed other movies found to be riddled with inaccuracies.

 

The awfulness of those other movies has nothing to do with the awfulness of this movie. And it really is awful.

The awfulness of those other movies has nothing to do with the awfulness of this movie. And it really is awful.

 

Yeah, but awful is awful, regardless of which awful viewpoint it takes, and it appears Mr. Ebert is only critical of awful that goes against his beliefs.

At first it was funny, but I'm really starting to get sick of/frightened by the war on intellectualism in America.

 

i agree. anti-intellectualism is rampant among liberals and neo-cons.

i agree. anti-intellectualism is rampant among liberals and neo-cons.

No, it's not really either one of them. It's basically anyone who would use a word/phrase like "overeducated" or "elitist" (when in reference to someone's education), those type of people don't really fit into either mold because to be honest, almost by definition, they're not really smart enough to know which they'd fall into, and they embrace that ignorance. I really don't understand that and frankly it's f***ing stupid, yet you have certain politicians who draw thunderous applause when they say it.

How productive to damn college educations while in all their solutions for a better america they talk about a need to get a good education.

No, it's not really either one of them. It's basically anyone who would use a word/phrase like "overeducated" or "elitist" (when in reference to someone's education), those type of people don't really fit into either mold because to be honest, almost by definition, they're not really smart enough to know which they'd fall into, and they embrace that ignorance. I really don't understand that and frankly it's f***ing stupid, yet you have certain politicians who draw thunderous applause when they say it.

 

na thats not true. i've met plenty of people who never use words like 'elitist' that are complete idiots and hate anything intellectual. they can't comprehend advanced thought and basically write it off as "doesn't exist, me just repeat what someone else tell me to think. me watch MTV for political news. "

 

there is also the""you're elitist!" crowd. i've been accused of this before by Republicans and I basically agree with them; I am elite.

Edited December 5, 200817 yr by mr_genius

na thats not true. i've met plenty of people who never use words like 'elitist' that are complete idiots and hate anything intellectual. they basically can't comprehend advanced thought and basically write it off as "doesn't exist, me just repeat what someone else tell me to think. me watch MTV for political news. "

You're not actually disagreeing with me, all my point really is is that the anti-intellectual crowd is too dumb to know whether they're a lib or a neocon or even whether they'd want to be, and usually they just regurgitate political views of people around them. The words are just labels that are thrown b/c they at least understand they're in a different category, they just don't know why. I can usually spot them a mile away and whenever I talk to one of them face to face they either go blank, change the subject, or let me talk endlessly b/c my knowledge compared to theirs is infinite. I just had a conversation with one today in fact.

Edited December 5, 200817 yr by lostfan

You're not actually disagreeing with me, all my point really is is that the anti-intellectual crowd is too dumb to know whether they're a lib or a neocon or even whether they'd want to be, and usually they just regurgitate political views of people around them. I can usually spot them a mile away and whenever I talk to one of them face to face they either go blank, change the subject, or let me talk endlessly b/c my knowledge compared to theirs is infinite. I just had a conversation with one today in fact.

 

agreed

I'm glad he bashed other movies found to be riddled with inaccuracies.

 

I think there is a rather large difference. One, Ebert was goaded into writing this review. Two, it is the basis of intelligent design that Ebert disagrees with, and in fact I'd bet that's why he didn't write a review because of that. The basis of fahrenheit 9/11, that bush is incompetent, made it easier to ignore execution. Plus no matter who you are you can probably undoubtedly state that Michael moore is a hell of a lot better than Ben Stein at making movies.

Expelled was one of the worst movies of the year by far. I rented it from Redbox and want my dollar back.

 

 

I think there is a rather large difference. One, Ebert was goaded into writing this review. Two, it is the basis of intelligent design that Ebert disagrees with, and in fact I'd bet that's why he didn't write a review because of that. The basis of fahrenheit 9/11, that bush is incompetent, made it easier to ignore execution. Plus no matter who you are you can probably undoubtedly state that Michael moore is a hell of a lot better than Ben Stein at making movies.

 

I haven't seen the movie, but it does look pretty bad and I can agree Moore is a better movie maker.

 

My point was with Ebert anymore it seems if the movie fits his "agenda" it gets a good review. Take his 4 stars for "W," for instance, a film most thought was horrible, which was evident by ticket sales.

 

By the way, he only gave Shawshank Redemption 3.5 stars. Hack!

 

He also gave "an inconvient truth" 4 stars as well.

i agree. anti-intellectualism is rampant among liberals and neo-cons.

Do you believe what you write sometimes? That's an honest question.

Do you believe what you write sometimes? That's an honest question.

 

I do. Before this goes any further, I am going to tell you right now that radical far left-wing ideals do not have any significant level of intellectual integrity. It's more laughable than anything else. Same thing with far right-wing rhetoric.

 

If that bothers, oh well. I don't care.

 

 

I haven't seen the movie, but it does look pretty bad and I can agree Moore is a better movie maker.

 

My point was with Ebert anymore it seems if the movie fits his "agenda" it gets a good review. Take his 4 stars for "W," for instance, a film most thought was horrible, which was evident by ticket sales.

 

By the way, he only gave Shawshank Redemption 3.5 stars. Hack!

Yes, W was an awful film. How anyone could give it 4 stars, unless they are incredibly shallow and/or incredibly politically biased in their flim views, is beyond me.

 

Inconvenient Truth was an OK film as documentaries go, at least.

 

Haven't seen Expelled, or Farenheit 9/11, and frankly have zero desire to do so in either case.

 

I wonder what Ebert gave The Day After Tomorrow, which deserves an award for one of the worst films made this decade. That film was laughable from the get-go, while helping destroy the environmental causes it sought to promote by making them wholly unbelievable.

 

I saw F/9-11 (while I was still in rabid anti-Bush, Republicans suck mode), and I believe it's foolish to expect it to be anything other than what it was, content-wise so I don't feel like it's the best example. I'd probably feel the same way if Ann Coulter ever made a movie.

See, this is where a debate on Roger Ebert becomes stupid, I'm sorry everyone. What makes Roger Ebert a good critic isn't his damn star rating system. You have to READ his reviews. What makes him the best critic in his actual reviews, is he tells you everything about the movie, what is good about it and what is bad about it very specifically, and lets you decide if these are things that are important to you. If it's a dance movie, he doesn't grade it on the same scale as a mamet film, he'll say the dances are wonderful, or bad, but he'll let you know if it has transcended the genre for people like me, that wouldn't want to see a movie just because the dances are good, to have an actual good plot line. If you read his review without the rating system there is a lot of times you wouldn't really be able to guess accurately what his meaningless rating system has to do with it. If it's a movie like There Will Be Blood, he'll focus on how aesthetically gorgeous it is and dialogue driven to study a character, so while he'll give it a high or low rating, he'll let a prospective viewer decide if that is the kind of movie he likes, because obviously, there is no way someone is going to like every kind of four star movie.